Posts Tagged 'Democrat'

Don’t Blink

This Saturday morning, July 23rd, the Senate was originally scheduled to vote on Cut, Cap and Balance, the Republican plan to cut $111 billion out of this year’s deficit, trim $4 trillion over ten years, and present a balanced budget amendment to the states.  Instead, Harry Reid moved the vote up to Friday morning, calling it a waste of time and the worst piece of legislation to ever come to the Senate floor.  It failed to pass on strict partisan lines.

Senator Schumer called the bill “Cut, Cap and Kill” because he insisted that the bill would kill Medicare.  Debbie Wasserman-Schultz declared in the House of Representatives that the bill would kill seniors and that it was the Paul Ryan plan on steroids.   The only problem is that in three different places Cut, Cap and Balance specifically exempted Medicare and Social Security from cuts and caps.  Had Republicans known, some of them might have been a little bit more up in arms about the bill.  It was actually a very good compromise.  It cut and cap wasteful spending on liberal social programs and government bureaucracy, not hot buttons like military, Social Security and Medicare.

Perhaps that is a more reasonable explanation of why Harry Reid went back on his promise to allow debate on Cut, Cap and Balance and instead moved the vote up.  Perhaps someone in the Senate actually read the bill and told Reid what was in it.  And then, as if scripted, suddenly news outlets started declaring a deal between Boehner and Obama that was so close Reid needed to get this bill off the floor and stop “wasting time” on it.  The only problem is there was no such deal.  Somebody was lying to provide the sense of urgency needed to cut off debate on Cut, Cap and Balance before it got out that Democrats were lying about it killing Medicare.

This has become the name of the game in budget talks.  Neither side is willing to give in because both sides know that 2012 elections hang in the balance.  The difference is that Republicans have actually gone so far as to write a good compromise bill.  Democrats can’t vote yes on it, not because it “kills Medicare” or kills seniors.  They can’t vote on it because passing Cut, Cap and Balance would destroy Democrat re-election hopes for 2012.  It would be a huge Republican victory because Republicans came up with it.

On the other hand, Democrats can’t write a plan of their own.  They haven’t submitted a budget in over 800 days, and they can’t submit one now or that will also destroy their chances of getting re-elected in 2012.  Democrats can’t write a bill that says “We want to raise taxes so that we don’t have to cut spending as much” and still win in 2012 because the vast majority of the country doesn’t want Democrats to raise taxes so that they can spend more.  They are spending enough already, and we are taxed enough already.  On the other hand, Democrats can’t write a plan saying “Ok, no higher taxes, just cuts” or they will lose their class warfare base.  The liberal base of the Democrat party does not want a bill that doesn’t raise taxes on the “rich”.  It’s not about raising revenue, it’s about punishing upper classes more.

Republicans submitted a plan and it was a good plan.  Obama has signaled that he is willing to let the country default on its debt rather than compromise with Republicans.  Democrats have proven that they are the party of no on a budget deal.  If Republicans end up caving in order to save our credit rating, I hope Americans get the right message.  It doesn’t mean Republicans are wimps and we need to get rid of them.  It means they can only do so much with just a majority in the House.  We need to give them the Senate and the Presidency in 2012 if we expect anything to get accomplished.

Advertisements

On Unemployment, Republicans are right and wrong

Get ready for the Sally Struthers commercials about to be produced by the DNC.  Republicans blocked an extension of unemployment benefits.

But what is being missed on a large scale is why Republicans blocked the extension.  Democrats have extended unemployment benefits four times and have not paid for any of the extensions.  In the most recent extension, they allowed people to find temporary work without losing benefits, all unpaid for.  With deficits over a trillion dollars, the Democrat argument has been that unemployment benefits create jobs.  I’m sure we can all come up with a time we were down on our luck and were hired by an unemployed person.  Right?

The Republican argument is simple.  Pay for the benefits, and they will vote to extend them.  In fact, since they are good Republicans, they don’t even want Democrats to cut other programs to pay for the benefits.  Simply take surpluses from Stimulus and TARP to pay for them.  Seems simple enough, but the Democrats appear to have local stimulus funded pork projects on their priority list above paying for unemployment benefits.  You won’t see that on their “Feed the Children of Detroit” tv special.

This one seems cut and dry.  But the Republicans are wrong too.  Saying you have a surplus in the stimulus program is like saying you have a surplus if you go shopping and don’t quite hit your credit limit.  The word “surplus” and “stimulus” (which was 100% in the red from day one) do not belong in the same sentence together.  Does it really matter which account we take the money from when every account is debt funded already?

Unemployment benefit extensions have become unregulated welfare.  No, unemployment benefits do not create jobs.  Businesses who are paid to create and produce goods and services that people want and need at prices they can afford create jobs.  But instead of throwing money at those job creators, we are raising taxes on them and telling them they can no longer conduct business.  A good example is Obama deciding we no longer need the energy independence that oil exploration and drilling would have provided.  That is thousands of jobs lost in his one decision.

Towards the beginning of Obama’s Presidency, he said that “There will be a time for profits, now is not that time”.  And that thinking is why Congress is looking for a fifth extension of unemployment benefits.

Spending Our Way Out Of Debt

A healthy economy is one in which people receive benefits for providing goods and services that people want at prices they are willing to pay.  Only a healthy free economy provides the proper allocation of resources and freedom of the individual.  We no longer live in a healthy free economy.

In 2008 we saw the beginning of a full fledged economic melt down.  Banks had been forced to lend to people who couldn’t afford to pay them back, auto makers were selling cars that no one wanted at prices no one could afford, housing had become unaffordable and builders had built more homes than could be filled in a year, and Wall Street high-rollers had bet that the economy would continue growing like crazy forever.  In a normal, healthy and free economy we were due for a market correction.  Individuals would shift from building more houses nobody wanted or could afford to building other things or pursuing other things that people do want or need.  Automakers would cut costs and build cars people want or need.  Wall Street fat cats would lose a lot of money and need to invest better in goods and services people want and need instead of hedged bets on things no one wants.  Yes, it would be painful for a while but we would emerge better for it.

Unfortunately, free markets is not the path we chose.  When everything started going downhill, President Bush said that he was going to stop being a capitalist so that he could save capitalism.  Of course, all the rational Americans heard that and let out a collective scream of frustration.  If you would like to read my portion of the collective scream, just take a look back in my blog.

The frustration we experienced when Bush lent hundreds of billions to irresponsible banks who were operating under irresponsible regulations was nothing compared to the frustration we experienced when Obama took a trillion dollars we didn’t have and handed it out to states, local governments, and Democrat special interests.  Then there was the frustration of President Obama taking money that was supposed to be lent to banks and giving it to auto makers just to turn around and sell those auto makers overseas while giving the profits to the unions.  Then there was cash for clunkers.  Then there was the reinflation of the real estate bubble through the first time home buyer credit (which has been extended and expanded).  All of this was unfunded and created a greater deficit in one year than Bush had generated in almost 8 years.

But it had the desired Keynesian effect.  Obama borrowed over a trillion dollars, signed our name on the loan, and then spent the money like a madman.  He bought the goods and services that nobody wanted at prices no one wanted to pay so that the people who produce such things could continue to get paid.  The result was that as 3.6 million jobs were lost, he could take credit for saving half a million.  The trillion dollars in debt spending pushed our economy into a quarter of “growth”.  People who otherwise couldn’t afford high priced homes bought them instead of waiting until the price naturally came down.  People who couldn’t afford cars bought them all with borrowed government dollars.  And now, Obama is taking credit for turning around our economy.

Here’s the problem, borrowing a million dollars doesn’t make you a millionaire.  Obama borrowed a trillion dollars and spent it on stuff that does not produce economic growth.  Joe Biden made it sound like there are millions of Americans who would be gainfully employed if only there was a bridge to the store they want to work at.  Obama made it sound like building a skatepark meant hundreds of permanent jobs, not a handful of revolving door jobs.  At the end of cash for clunkers, auto dealers are right back where they started except now their cars cost $3,500 more.  When the first time homebuyer handout finally ends, real estate will be right back where it started except that houses will cost $8,500 more.  When Obama finishes dolling out hundreds of billions of dollars in pork stimulus, the economy will be right back where it started, only a trillion dollars further in debt.  It’s no fluke that despite all the stimulus jobs saved we are at 10% unemployment.  Our economy is so subsidized that the government cannot end any of these costly programs without burying us in every market correction we have postponed in this downturn.  We have been on life support so long we forgot how to breathe on our own.

Fortunately, Obama has recognized that we have a debt problem.  Of course he blames it on the last eight years, although his debt increases are projected to be twice Bush’s.  But Obama has come up with the oddest solution to fixing our debt.  He plans on borrowing another couple hundred billion dollars and spending it on goods and services that nobody wants or needs in the form of more stimulus infrastructure projects that do not produce growth.  For many of us, frustration and anger are turning into pure disbelief.

Any business owner, manager, or 2nd grader knows that you can make money by investing in things that produce growth.  But when the CEO of a failing business declares that the solution to all their problems is to build a nicer sidewalk in back of the building, repaint the lines in the parking lot, and put new wallpaper in the bathrooms, you know it’s time to sell that stock.  When he decides to pay for these infrastructure improvements by borrowing from his competitors, firing his managers and salespeople, starting a union, and promoting the janitors to executive positions, it has become a company only a Democrat could love.

Obama’s solution to our continued economic woes is to throw more money at the problem.  It’s the Democratic way.  Just like Bush destroyed capitalism to save it, Obama is cutting the debt by increasing deficit spending.  Who knows, maybe in the magical world where free healthcare handouts result in lower deficits and higher taxes on energy creates more jobs, borrowing and wasting more money on special interests will produce permanent growth.

The True Waterloo: Abortion

Late Saturday night, House Democrats and one Republican passed HR 3962.  This more than 2,000 page bill included payoffs to many of the more conservative Democrats who were sitting on the fence, but still it only squeaked by.  Despite the bill’s passage, there was one major victory for conservatism in the bi-partisan Stupak-Pitts amendment that bans federal funding for abortion.  The amendment reflected a shift in social values in the US, highlighted by a Gallup poll earlier this year showing that the majority of Americans oppose abortion.  The amendment enjoyed the support of 69 Democrats.

Democrats may not have realized this, but the Stupak-Pitts amendment goes much further than HR 3962.  In fact, that one amendment is a knife in heart of the Democrat universal healthcare agenda.  Unwittingly, Democrats have helped make HR 3962 non-implementable.

Under HR 3962, health costs and health insurance premiums will go through the roof.  Democrats pay for universal healthcare by taxing healthcare universally.  They tax insurance companies, tax doctors, tax health product manufacturers, tax pharmaceuticals, and of course, tax you.  What do they do with all that tax money?  They give it back to us disproportionately so that we can all buy insurance.  Through this wealth redistribution, healthcare costs far more but the government subsidizes it.   Without the government subsidy, most Americans will not be able to afford these higher rates.

The Stupak-Pitts amendment makes it so that not only can the government not offer abortion in it’s cheaper public option (which do not be mistaken, will put every other insurance company out of business), but government cannot subsidize abortion in other insurance plans.  At the much higher health costs under HR 3962, this will make abortion a luxury that only the rich will be able to afford.

Already Democrats are in full revolt against one another.  One side realizes that their radical attempts to use federal funds to pay for abortion will destroy their party’s power.  For some Democrats it is even a violation of conscience.  On the other hand, the more liberal wing of the party realizes that without catering to the radical factions in the party they will lose their base.

One thing is for sure, a final bill cannot have the Stupak-Pitts amendment in it.  When the government is paying for or subsidizing every approved health insurance plan, and the government is not allowed to pay for or subsidize abortion, then abortion has been effectively killed in the United States.  On the other hand, a Democrat style health takeover bill will not pass the Senate without an abortion amendment and barely passed the House with one.  Either the abortion amendment or the healthcare takeover has to go.

 

Conservatives Need Not Apply

There are few people in this country so convicted of every person’s constitutional right to equality and the pursuit of happiness as Rush Limbaugh.  Rush has spoken many times on his radio program about each individual’s rights to equal treatment under the law, opportunity without government prohibition, and God given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  He has also been vocal about each person’s responsibility to live up to their personal potential and how special treatment from the Government prohibits this.  Of course, these views are not at all popular with those who believe that the rich have been treated unfairly well and that certain specific groups of people need the government to take from the rich and give to them in order to succeed.

Add to this that Rush is an outspoken conservative public figure and it is easy to see why so many, especially on the left, outright hate him.  Even back when political correctness ruled our country, Rush could always be counted on to give his clear personal opinion.  That always makes some people uncomfortable.  There aren’t many honest people left out there in the public spotlight.  The reason for this is the rampant bigotry against people who lean heavily conservative.

This was made all to evident this week as Rush was denied his attempt to purchase a portion of the NFL football team, the St. Louis Rams.  Rush has an intense love for football, I dare say almost as much as my own love for football.  But what began with racist attacks from Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson ended with Rush being disallowed from purchasing a portion of the franchise.  For years men and women were not allowed to vote, drink from the same fountain, own property, or shop at certain establishments because of their race, gender, or in some cases sexual preference.  Now we are seeing discrimination based on political views.

We should have seen this coming.  In fact, some of us did.  Suddenly a few months ago, disagreeing with this President was racism.  Speaking out about healthcare or cap and trade became hate speech.  Now, believing in equality, opportunity, and the constitution is racism and expressing your conservative leanings is hate speech.  And if they can’t find good examples of things you have said to make people hate you, they make them up.

When the news first came out about Rush’s desire to pursue his happiness and own a minority stake in the St. Louis Rams, false quotes immediately began appearing and being attributed to Rush.  One such example was CNN saying that Rush had said “Slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark.” But it turns out Rush never said this.  A leftist bigot made up the quote and attributed it to Rush because he hated Rush’s conservatism.  But as the blog I linked to here points out, CNN was too busy fact checking a Saturday Night Live skit about Obama to fact check their own story on Rush.

So what is the end result of all this?  Maybe I should quit my blog.  I buy stocks in different companies, which is no different then what Rush was trying to do.  Will I someday be told by a company that I can’t buy their stock because I am an outspoken conservative? Will I someday be turned down for a job because in my personal life I am an outspoken conservative constitutionalist?  Some argue that we have already reached this point.

Robert J. Avrich claims that he was fired from a screenwriting job for being too conservative for Hollywood.  Ben Stein says he was fired from the New York Times for being a creationist, but one leftist blogger at Businessinsider.com contends that it was just because Stein is conservative.  Kansas teacher Tim Latham was fired for being a conservative.   And now Rush is the latest to be on the receiving end of this leftist discrimination.  But you will never see Congressional Democrats adding conservatives to the hate crimes protected groups list.

Rush Limbaugh said on his program today that he probably wasn’t going to sue over this because he has never conducted himself or his business that way.  I would caution Rush that when he is discriminated against in this way, he does not just represent himself.  He represents every outspoken conservative in America.  When Rush is denied this opportunity solely because of his conservative values, we are all denied.

Do you think I’m wrong here?  Leave me a comment.  I think this is a very serious issue that in the long run could affect every outspoken, freedom loving conservative.

Outrage: Why the Left Deserves Condemnation from the Homosexual Community

The homosexual community used to argue that it should be no one’s business what people do in their own bedroom.  If HBO and the far left have their way, it will be everyone’s business.  They are out to destroy the careers of prominent politicians based solely on their rumored sexual orientation.

In the last couple days, the film Outrage, by Kirby Dick (yes, that’s his name),  hit the small screen on HBO.  Dick’s film is a “documentary” (not that that word actually means anything anymore) about all the public politicians who are hiding their homosexuality.  Whether offering solid evidence, rumors, or pure conspiracy theory, Dick targets any politician who might be trying to protect their privacy by not coming out of the closet.

Apparently, if you are gay you have no right to personal privacy.  Among those who Dick attempts to drag out of the closet is Florida’s Republican governor Charlie Crist, who is recently married.  Apparently if you fit one or two of the physical stereotypes, that also means you are gay and deserve to be dragged out of the closet.  Crist has reiterated that he is not gay, but that does not stop the bigots on the left.

The outrage is not that there are members of the government who are closet homosexuals or fit some bigot’s conspiracy theory, but won’t come out and fight for the radical left’s agenda.  The outrage is that the left is willing to abuse homosexuals and non-homosexuals to satisfy their political agenda.  How many gay politicians have had their careers ruined by these conspiracy theorists?  Larry Craig is either straight, or gay and very concerned for his own family and career.  Instead of respecting his rights to privacy, the left has dragged him into the public square and turned him into a mockery.  Was it for his own good or for the good of the homosexual community?  No.  It was for the good of the left who knew that Larry Craig’s scandal would help win them elections.

Crist is a strong Republican who is running for the Senate next fall.  Right now the Democrats don’t have a shot at defeating him.  All that could change if the left succeeds in getting voters to believe that he is a closet homosexual who is too scared to come out of the closet.  Every homosexual who is interested in protecting their own rights should ask themselves, does making these accusations help the homosexual community?  Or does it just help the Democrats win elections?  Does attacking a straight man and labeling him because of the way he talks or moves help homosexuals?  Or does it ruin the career of an individual based solely on the left masterfully playing on people’s prejudices?

Kirby Dick’s pretenses of trying to get Republicans to vote for homosexual marriage by ruining their lives and careers is nothing more than sickening deception.  The left deserves the strongest condemnation from both homosexuals and heterosexuals for these cheap political ploys.

A Loser for Doctors

There’s something Humana wants you to know about the Baucus Healthcare plan.  The administration is making sure they can’t tell you.

The Baucus plan is a loser for doctors, clinics, medical suppliers and patients.  The problem with the Baucus plan is that it does not deal in reality.  In the minds of the crafters of our new health scheme, if you raise taxes on healthcare providers that is not a tax increase on healthcare consumers.  For Democrats, if you cut payments to doctors and healthcare providers that does not result in a cut in service.

This is exactly what the Baucus plan does.  You may have been asking yourself how Obama plans to cut hundreds of billions of dollars out of the Medicare system without cutting benefits.   If you are like me, you were probably thinking that if it’s so easy to cut waste out of the Medicare system we should have done it already.  Here is the magical plan to cut Medicare waste, ready?

Cut Medicare payments to doctors and healthcare providers.  Obama’s reasoning is that if you cut the amount the government pays to doctors and healthcare providers, they will put in the work to cut waste.  After all, would you treat someone who didn’t deserve it if you weren’t getting paid as much to?  Would you treat someone who did?  The Congressional Budget Office says probably not.  In fact, the Finance Committee is projecting $500 billion in cuts to Medicare providers over the next 10 years.  Humana believes this will result in service cuts and tried to tell their clients so, but the White House has shut them down and has ordered investigations into their claims.

The Baucus plan raises taxes on doctors and clinics, cuts Medicare payments to doctors and clinics, and forces more people on to government approved insurance plans. The insurance companies will be negotiating for the lowest prices possible to pay for their own tax increases from the Baucus bill.  But while insurance companies get 40 million new clients who will be forced under penalty of the law to buy health insurance and given the money to buy it, doctors will see little benefits from the market interference.  Emergency Rooms will be happy to see more patients carrying insurance, but they will still be required to treat illegal aliens.  Also, ERs will still have to treat those who are too poor to get insurance.  Many of these people have not taken advantage of plans that their states offer for the poor so they are not likely to seek Federal help either.  In addition, they do not file taxes, so they won’t have to worry about the Baucus penalty tax for not buying insurance.

In the end, the money makers in the Baucus plan are the insurance companies and the government. The next step in the process is seeing how much it takes in pork barrel bribes to get 60 votes.


Share This Blog

Bookmark and Share

Categories